Cycling KSI up by 19%
Judith M Smith
June cycle deaths and total number of life-threatening injuries has
increased by 19 percent from what it was at the same time last year.
So lets be hearing the excuses.
Have I ever told you that I think cycling is quite dangerous?
--
Members of the medical profession refer to cyclists as "donors".
(Daily Mail)
Tom Crispin
<judith...@live.co.uk> wrote:
>So lets be hearing the excuses.
A fall in motorists, leading to higher average speeds makes motorists
more dangerous. They need to install speed cameras at every road
junction as that is where motorists routinely kill or injure innocent
cyclists.
Conor
says...
> So lets be hearing the excuses.
>
The "have you seen the light" campaign last week saw police out in force
in a bid to educate cyclists and motorists about traffic laws.
Together with Cambridge City Council, the enforcement and education
campaign was aimed to make sure cyclists and motorists? lights were
working properly as the clocks went back.
On TWO NIGHTS, they caught 200 people. Out of that 200, 121 were
cyclists who had no lights whatsoever. 51 cyclists were reported for
cycling on the pavement and three received fines for other offences with
one being reported to the courts.
> Have I ever told you that I think cycling is quite dangerous?
>
And its usually because of the moron doing the cycling.
Lest you forget:
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=NyrmWhSDqqQ
--
Conor
www.notebooks-r-us.co.uk
I'm not prejudiced. I hate everybody equally.
Happi Monday
> The most recent government statistics show that from last April to
> June cycle deaths and total number of life-threatening injuries has
> increased by 19 percent from what it was at the same time last year.
>
>
>
> So lets be hearing the excuses.
>
> Have I ever told you that I think cycling is quite dangerous?
It's not the cycling, it's the aggressive motorists that are the problem.
Mark Goodge
and typed:
That wouldn't have any effect, as motorists aren't usually speeding at
junctions. You can easily kill someone at 29mph if you aren't looking
where you're going and aren't aware of what's around you.
If you want my explanation (not an excuse, since I think that bad
driving is always inexcusable), I'd say that it's precisely the
automated enforcement of purely technical offences, such as speeding,
that is the problem. It's creating a generation of motorists who think
that so long as they're within the speed limit they must be driving
safely, and removed the incentive for the police to do the job of
policing bad driving.
Mark
--
Blog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk
Stuff: http://www.good-stuff.co.uk
Just zis Guy, you know?
>A fall in motorists, leading to higher average speeds makes motorists
>more dangerous. They need to install speed cameras at every road
>junction as that is where motorists routinely kill or injure innocent
>cyclists.
Tomorrow morning on Radio 4, about 9:30am, this is due to be
discussed. Or so I'm told.
Year-to-date figures are 2% higher, with a significant measured
increase in cycling, it's only the direct comparison of one quarter
with another. Anyone remember what the weather and the economy were
like in Q2 2008 compared with Q2 2009? These are small numbers to
start with so it's not going to take much to skew them.
But as the commentator said on the news earlier today, it's simply not
possible to draw any sensible conclusion from comparing these two
particular figures.
Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/urc
GPG public key at http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/pgp-public-key.txt
Conor
you know? says...
>
> Anyone remember what the weather and the economy were
> like in Q2 2008 compared with Q2 2009? These are small numbers to
> start with so it's not going to take much to skew them.
>
Martin
news:hd24t7$qdh$2...@aioe.org...
It's the cyclists who think that they are above the law and need not stop at
red traffic lights and zebra crossings with people on them, and who try to
overtake left-turning vehicles on the left.
I cycle as if I am a human-powered two-wheeled car, obeying all the same
laws and rulesand not trying to seek any advantage over cars and lorries by
virtue of being narrower or by being untraceable (ie no number plate that
can be reprted).
Mr. Benn
news:dk39f51100aie9jci...@4ax.com:
How the hell does any driver manage to exceed the speed limit at a road
junction?
Mr. Benn
news:9qOdnTsmB_KNK2nX...@brightview.co.uk:
And that is exactly the way I cycle. And I have never been involved in an
accident involving a four wheeled vehicle. I did have a mishap once which
was the fault of a curb however. Entirely my fault.
Peter Hill
There's a huge number of incompetent people driving on our roads.
People that are so incompetent they can't in clear dry conditions with
no parked cars or traffic in sight ahead of them do 25mph in a posted
30mph limit, 30mph in a 40mph limit. 40mph in a 50mph limit or NSL and
actually take HGV's prisioner on all roads. "speed is dangerous"
People that brake becasue they have seen an oncoming vehicle and have
to move over from their usual road position with offside wheels 30cm
the wrong side of the white line.
People that not only fail to accelerate but brake in the acceleration
zone of DC/M-way slip roads even though the road is CLEAR!
People that have had 100+ lessons and 17 tests. Failing 5 times should
result in a life time ban.
--
Peter Hill
Spamtrap reply domain as per NNTP-Posting-Host in header
Can of worms - what every fisherman wants.
Can of worms - what every PC owner gets!
Tom Crispin
<peter....@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>People that are so incompetent they can't in clear dry conditions with
>no parked cars or traffic in sight ahead of them do 25mph in a posted
>30mph limit, 30mph in a 40mph limit. 40mph in a 50mph limit or NSL
When I was at university, I mistakenly thought of an overdraft limit
as being a target. Are you making the same error that my young mind
made all those years ago with speed limits?
To my mind, there is nothing wrong with driving at half the posted
limit.
Mark Goodge
and typed:
>On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 08:35:18 +0000, Peter Hill
There's nothing wrong with it at all, if that's what the road
conditions require. However, driving too slowly for the conditions is
a fail on the IAM test, just as much as driving too quickly. It's
common courtesy to avoid causing unnecessary delays to people behind
you, just as it's common courtesy to give cyclists a wide berth when
overtaking them. A good driver thinks about other road users, not just
him/herself.
Also, while there's nothing legally wrong with driving more slowly
than required by the law or conditions, it is the experience of
driving instructors and examiners that doing so is almost always a
symptom of a general lack of competance on the part of the driver -
and, although driving slowly itself is not particularly dangerous,
such people are also more likely to make other types of mistake such
as misjudging distances at junctions.
Happi Monday
> "Happi Monday" <ha...@munday.com> wrote in message
> news:hd24t7$qdh$2...@aioe.org...
>> Judith M Smith wrote:
>>> The most recent government statistics show that from last April to
>>> June cycle deaths and total number of life-threatening injuries has
>>> increased by 19 percent from what it was at the same time last year.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> So lets be hearing the excuses.
>>>
>>> Have I ever told you that I think cycling is quite dangerous?
>>
>> It's not the cycling, it's the aggressive motorists that are the problem.
>
> It's the cyclists who think that they are above the law and need not
> stop at red traffic lights and zebra crossings with people on them, and
> who try to overtake left-turning vehicles on the left.
You are absolutely correct - both are big problems and both should be
sanctioned.
furnessvale
> Lest you forget:http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=NyrmWhSDqqQ
Amazing video, I've never seen it before. It must have been edited to
cut out the numerous crashes which must have happened. Also amazing
the number of those idiots NOT wearing crash helmets when they knew
what they were about to embark on!
Pity I wasn't about at the time. My reactions are nowhere near good
enough to swerve out of the way as a number of those motorists did:-)
George
Peter Hill
Well OK if you are on a leisure drive. Why not pull over and let the 3
HGV's and 20 cars that are stuck behind you go past?
NM
Yeah, I just watched the video (thanks Conor).
Peter Hill
Woo.
Making a rear observation of the following car. I've seen at least 3
cases in the last month of people turning into junctions so late and
wide they are fully in the oncoming lane.
And then there's the turn right to turn left brigade. They swing wide
before the turn.
>Mark
Proper progress.
10minute vid driving from London to Bath, via Reading Theale Newbury
Hungerford Marlborough Caine Chippenham
http://www.youtube.com/profile?gl=GB&user=tecmovie#p/a
Needs a proper car.
Peter Grange
>> Have I ever told you that I think cycling is quite dangerous?
>>
>And its usually because of the moron doing the cycling.
>
>Lest you forget:
>http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=NyrmWhSDqqQ
Of course, that's absolutely typical of all cycling in the UK. And
it's also at least the fourth time someone's posted the link on this
NG. <Yawn>
--
Pete
mileburner
"Judith M Smith" <judith...@live.co.uk> wrote in message
news:2l09f5l96cgjm41af...@4ax.com...
> The most recent government statistics show that from last April to
> June cycle deaths and total number of life-threatening injuries has
> increased by 19 percent from what it was at the same time last year.
>
>
>
> So lets be hearing the excuses.
>
> Have I ever told you that I think cycling is quite dangerous?
It would be interesting to hear from the drivers who kill them what they
excuses are.
Any ideas?
Keitht
Easy -- it's the ones who see an amber light and press the pedal on the
right and not the one in the middle*. You don't have to watch -- just
listen.
*assuming it's a manuel** gearbox
**assuming it's Spanish gearbox
--
Its never too late to reinvent the bicycle
NM
Seems a lot of the scenes (obviously this is extensivly edited) are
exactly typical of cyclists behaviour, maybe not all at once, as in
the vid but typical nevertheless. 4th time of posting, so what, your
attitude of finding the truth boring says it all.
Derek Geldard
Translation : "They don't like it up 'em."
Derek
thomas
excuses are.
Any ideas?
Due to the recession loads of ex-car drivers now use bikes?***
Due to the green hogwash they volunteered to be bikists and died to save
the planet?
Silly sods think bikes are as safe as cars- just more manouverable so drive
on pavements and the wrong way down one way streets?
***Plenty of car drivers are stupid enough to "sneak up" on the side of a
juggernaut -BANG - in a car new wing mirror - on a bike death!
NM
> "Judith M Smith" <judithmsm...@live.co.uk> wrote in message>news:2l09f5l96cgjm41af...@4ax.com...
>
> It would be interesting to hear from the drivers who kill them what they
> excuses are.
>
> Any ideas?
>
> ***Plenty of car drivers are stupid enough to "sneak up" on the side of a
> juggernaut -BANG - in a car new wing mirror - on a bike death!
So why do it? Death wish perhaps!? (or is that the correct natural
presumption for cyclists?)
OG
Ignorance most like; after all, the presumption is that cyclists
'belong' in the left hand gutter so it's not surprising that
inexperienced and unassertive cyclists end up there.
Graculus
news:tsdaf5po7c9fgmpts...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 08:35:18 +0000, Peter Hill
> <peter....@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>People that are so incompetent they can't in clear dry conditions with
>>no parked cars or traffic in sight ahead of them do 25mph in a posted
>>30mph limit, 30mph in a 40mph limit. 40mph in a 50mph limit or NSL
>
> When I was at university, I mistakenly thought of an overdraft limit
> as being a target. Are you making the same error that my young mind
> made all those years ago with speed limits?
No he's not.
> To my mind, there is nothing wrong with driving at half the posted
> limit.
Then your mind is pretty screwed up. Barring the normal hazards (wet/icy
roads, bends, obstacles etc), do you really think it's considerate to other
road users to pootle along at 25 in a 50, or 30 in a NSL? In fact, I'd
consider it DWDC, as you would be seriously pissing off those behind you.
Tom Crispin
I would have thought that the opposite would be the case. A competent
motorist should find it far easier to overtake another motorist
driving at 25mph on a road with a 50mph limit than a motorist driving
at 48mph on a road with a 50mph limit.
But, perhaps you do not consider yourself a competent motorist.
Conor
says...
> To my mind, there is nothing wrong with driving at half the posted
> limit.
Except for the long queue of people you're holding up, you selfish cunt.
Conor
says...
> I would have thought that the opposite would be the case. A competent
> motorist should find it far easier to overtake another motorist
> driving at 25mph on a road with a 50mph limit than a motorist driving
> at 48mph on a road with a 50mph limit.
>
..assuming there's no oncoming traffic.
> But, perhaps you do not consider yourself a competent motorist.
..says the man who advocates driving at 50% of the speed limit.
Conor
says...
> Of course, that's absolutely typical of all cycling in the UK.
Riding the wrong way up one way streets, jumping lights, riding on the
pavement, riding up the wrong side of the road, cutting up
vehicles...yep it is although usually at lower speeds.
Tom Crispin
>In article <718bf5tonsniccqd8...@4ax.com>, Tom Crispin
>says...
>
>> I would have thought that the opposite would be the case. A competent
>> motorist should find it far easier to overtake another motorist
>> driving at 25mph on a road with a 50mph limit than a motorist driving
>> at 48mph on a road with a 50mph limit.
>>
>..assuming there's no oncoming traffic.
>
>> But, perhaps you do not consider yourself a competent motorist.
>
>..says the man who advocates driving at 50% of the speed limit.
All I said was, "there is nothing wrong with driving at half the
posted limit."
NM
wrote:
> On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 15:59:02 -0000, "Graculus"
>
>
>
> >"Tom Crispin" <kije.rem...@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote in message
I suspect he is, patently you are not.
Tom Crispin
>In article <tsdaf5po7c9fgmpts...@4ax.com>, Tom Crispin
>says...
>
>> To my mind, there is nothing wrong with driving at half the posted
>> limit.
>
>Except for the long queue of people you're holding up, you selfish cunt.
With the average speed of traffic being 12mph in London, driving at 15
in 30 zones and 10 in 20 zones might actually increase average speeds.
Mark Goodge
and typed:
You can only overtake safely if the road is reasonably straight and
there's nothing coming the other way.
mileburner
"Conor" <co...@gmx.co.uk> wrote in message
news:MPG.255fb782e...@news.eternal-september.org...
> In article <tsdaf5po7c9fgmpts...@4ax.com>, Tom Crispin
> says...
>
>> To my mind, there is nothing wrong with driving at half the posted
>> limit.
>
> Except for the long queue of people you're holding up, you selfish cunt.
I also agree that there is nothing wrong with driving at half the speed
limit. Especially if there are hazards, and especially if the speed limit
has been set too high. The NSL of 60mph on some of the roads near me would
impossible to reach, on others, it would be totally irresponsible. It would
also be totally irresponsible to drive at anything near the 30mph limit
through busy shopping areas and past schools (at the start or end of the
school day).
However, (and besides the safety considerations) are you suggesting that the
best way to piss off aggressive drivers is to drive slowly? or is there a
better way? :-)
mileburner
> In article <0ojaf5h4uqcndlk76...@4ax.com>, Peter Grange
> says...
>
>> Of course, that's absolutely typical of all cycling in the UK.
>
> Riding the wrong way up one way streets, jumping lights, riding on the
> pavement, riding up the wrong side of the road, cutting up
> vehicles...yep it is although usually at lower speeds.
Some LA's have been encouraging riding the wrong way up one way streets by
creating contraflow cycle lanes.
Pavement riding is also encouraged by shared pedestrian/cyclist paths.
Toucan crossings also encourage cyclists to behave like pedestrians.
Tom Crispin
Or if the road is sufficiently wide. How easy would it be, for
example, to overtake a car doing 35mph on the nearside lane of a clear
five lane motorway?
Certainly a competent motorist would have little difficulty.
Mr. Benn
<Bangs head against wall>
Mr. Benn
Not everyone lives in London. Believe it or not, people do actually live
outside of the capital.
mileburner
"Tom Crispin" <kije....@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote in message
news:s3abf5d7mlcq236lk...@4ax.com...
There seems to be a very strong desire amongst car drivers to spend as much
time as possible in traffic queues. One of the ways they can achieve this is
to drive as fast as they can, overtake anything in their way, slam on the
brakes at the last second.
I suspect though, that this actually has nothing to do with wanting to wait
in the traffic queue itself, but has more to do with being able to consume
as much fuel as possible so to ensure that they are paying as much as
possible in fuel tax and contributing more to society (not forgetting,
paying for the upkeep of the roads).
In this respect, all cyclists are selfish cunts. They even put their
personal health and well-being before contributing tax to society.
Mr. Benn
"Overtaking" on a motorway? I bet you're the kind of person who thinks
lane 3 is the "fast lane". Or lane 5 in your example.
Trevor A Panther
Ah the descent into foul language!
The refuge of the illiterate. If you arguement is failing then just use a
few "c" or "f" words!
--
From
Trevor A Panther
In South Yorkshire,
England, United Kingdom
www.tapan.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk
Tom Crispin
The "fast lane" is a term in common useage, but no, I do not think of
overtaking lanes as "fast lanes". And before you ask, neither would I
pootle along in an overtaking lane to the right when a lane to the
left is clear.
mileburner
> Or if the road is sufficiently wide. How easy would it be, for
> example, to overtake a car doing 35mph on the nearside lane of a clear
> five lane motorway?
>
> Certainly a competent motorist would have little difficulty.
Reality check!
No-one uses the nearside lane of a 5 lane motorway (assuming you actually
mean a 10 lane motorway) so it does not matter what speed anyone does in it.
Mr. Benn
news:vpiJm.39736$ep1....@newsfe30.ams2:
>
> "Conor" <co...@gmx.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:MPG.255fb782e...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> In article <tsdaf5po7c9fgmpts...@4ax.com>, Tom Crispin
>> says...
>>
>>> To my mind, there is nothing wrong with driving at half the posted
>>> limit.
>>
>> Except for the long queue of people you're holding up, you selfish
>> cunt.
>>
>> --
>> Conor
>> www.notebooks-r-us.co.uk
>>
>> I'm not prejudiced. I hate everybody equally.
>
> Ah the descent into foul language!
>
> The refuge of the illiterate. If you arguement is failing then just
> use a few "c" or "f" words!
It's normal language for Conor. He isn't trying to be nasty. Some people
automatically use expletives.
Peter Grange
Who are "They" precisely?
--
Pete
Peter Grange
wrote:
>On 7 Nov, 10:43, Peter Grange <pe...@plgrange.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 21:10:04 -0000, Conor <co...@gmx.co.uk> wrote:
>> >> Have I ever told you that I think cycling is quite dangerous?
>>
>> >And its usually because of the moron doing the cycling.
>>
>> >Lest you forget:
>> >http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=NyrmWhSDqqQ
>>
>> Of course, that's absolutely typical of all cycling in the UK. And
>> it's also at least the fourth time someone's posted the link on this
>> NG. <Yawn>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Pete
>
>Seems a lot of the scenes (obviously this is extensivly edited) are
>exactly typical of cyclists behaviour, maybe not all at once, as in
>the vid but typical nevertheless. 4th time of posting, so what, your
>attitude of finding the truth boring says it all.
Just because something is repeated endlessly doesn't make it the
truth.
You talking about the truth is rich anyway after your wriggling and
story-changing about your twat of a friend who turned right in front
of a cyclist in your "Who is laible for the damage" thread.
--
Pete
Dave S.
"Martin" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:9qOdnTsmB_KNK2nX...@brightview.co.uk...
> It's the cyclists who think that they are above the law and need not stop
> at red traffic lights and zebra crossings with people on them, and who try
> to overtake left-turning vehicles on the left.
>
> I cycle as if I am a human-powered two-wheeled car, obeying all the same
> laws and rulesand not trying to seek any advantage over cars and lorries
> by virtue of being narrower or by being untraceable (ie no number plate
> that can be reprted).
You forgot to mention the ones that change from riding on the road to riding
on the pavement when it suits them and then changing back again, both
without any form of signals.
Then there are the cyclists who drives about without reflectors and/or
lights in poor visibility and those who don't wear high viz clothing.
What about the cyclists who drive about with earphones in both ears with the
music from their MP3 player drowning out the noise of what's happening
around them.
Oh, and don't forget the cyclists who wobble about on the road because
they're using their mobile phone to send a text.
I could go on.
Oh, I just did!!
Dave S.
NM
> On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 03:17:41 -0800 (PST), NM <nik.mor...@mac.com>
I didn't say it was, you have replied to the wrong poster.
NM
> Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> considered Sat, 07 Nov
> overtake something traveling 5mph below the speed limit than something
> traveling at 25mph below the speed limit.
>
> Of course, all this encouragement to drive as fast as legally possible
> is completely missing the point that IT'S A LIMIT, NOT A TARGET.
>
> Reasons for driving slower are many, and include such mundane things
> as consideration for other road users, or the desire to save fuel and
> reduce pollution.
> The desire to race everywhere at the fastest possible speed shows
> complete disregard for all of those.
When are these laudable attitudes to fellow travellers shown by
cyclists? When they weave through pedestrianas on a crossing perhaps?
NM
> Conor <co...@gmx.co.uk> considered Sat, 7 Nov 2009 16:58:14 -0000 the
> perfect time to write:
>
> >In article <tsdaf5po7c9fgmpts2gl26k4tgpp1n8...@4ax.com>, Tom Crispin
> >says...
>
> >> To my mind, there is nothing wrong with driving at half the posted
> >> limit.
>
> >Except for the long queue of people you're holding up, you selfish cunt.
>
> be driving at all.
> To get agitated that someone is driving slower than you wish to travel
> is a sure sign of a dangerous driver.
Absolute rot. A driver being deliberatly obstructive is not driving
correctly, end of story.
Just zis Guy, you know?
wrote:
>You forgot to mention the ones that change from riding on the road to riding
>on the pavement when it suits them and then changing back again, both
>without any form of signals.
>
>Then there are the cyclists who drives about without reflectors and/or
>lights in poor visibility and those who don't wear high viz clothing.
>
>What about the cyclists who drive about with earphones in both ears with the
>music from their MP3 player drowning out the noise of what's happening
>around them.
>
>Oh, and don't forget the cyclists who wobble about on the road because
>they're using their mobile phone to send a text.
>
>I could go on.
Yup. In fact it is surprising, given all the above, that where fault
is assigned in collisions between cyclists and motorists, the motorist
is usually at fault.
Surprising but true. In fact, cyclists appear to be the least likely
of all road users to be the authors of their own misfortune.
It's almost as if cyclists are aware that if they are hit it will
*hurt* while drivers assume that the consequence of any cluelessness
will only ever be scratched paint or bent metal.
Hmmm. Maybe there's something in that.
Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/urc
GPG public key at http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/pgp-public-key.txt
Just zis Guy, you know?
wrote:
>When are these laudable attitudes to fellow travellers shown by
>cyclists? When they weave through pedestrianas on a crossing perhaps?
Quick, chaps, the goalposts are over there now!
Tom Crispin
wrote:
>On 7 Nov, 19:38, Phil W Lee <phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk> wrote:
Since when has driving within the posted speed limit been synonomous
with being deliberately obstructive?
NM
wrote:
> On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 11:43:39 -0800 (PST), NM <nik.mor...@mac.com>
Since it has been a requirement to make reasonable progress, if you
want to know chapter and verse of the statute then look it up yourself
because I'm not going to.
Tom Crispin
wrote:
>Since it has been a requirement to make reasonable progress, if you
>want to know chapter and verse of the statute then look it up yourself
>because I'm not going to.
Last Sunday I cycled to Brighton with the Veteran Cars, nearly all of
which were built before 1905. In NSL areas many of them travelled
considerably below 30mph, especially up hills.
Peter Grange
wrote:
>On 7 Nov, 19:10, Peter Grange <pe...@plgrange.demon.co.uk> wrote:
Sorry, didn't say what was?
Mark Goodge
<phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk> put finger to keyboard and typed:
>Of course, all this encouragement to drive as fast as legally possible
>is completely missing the point that IT'S A LIMIT, NOT A TARGET.
The target is to make progress as efficiently as possible within the
constraints of the road, the vehicle and the law. If the only one of
those preventing you from making more efficient progress is the law,
then you should make full use of what the law permits.
Mark
--
Blog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk
Stuff: http://www.good-stuff.co.uk
John Wright
> Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> considered Sat, 07 Nov
> 2009 17:16:40 +0000 the perfect time to write:
>
>> and typed:
>>
>>> On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 15:59:02 -0000, "Graculus"
>>> <ReplaceWit...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> Then your mind is pretty screwed up. Barring the normal hazards (wet/icy
>>>> roads, bends, obstacles etc), do you really think it's considerate to other
>>>> road users to pootle along at 25 in a 50, or 30 in a NSL? In fact, I'd
>>>> consider it DWDC, as you would be seriously pissing off those behind you.
>>> I would have thought that the opposite would be the case. A competent
>>> motorist should find it far easier to overtake another motorist
>>> driving at 25mph on a road with a 50mph limit than a motorist driving
>>> at 48mph on a road with a 50mph limit.
>> You can only overtake safely if the road is reasonably straight and
>> there's nothing coming the other way.
>>
> But you need a far greater length of unobstructed straight road to
> overtake something traveling 5mph below the speed limit than something
> traveling at 25mph below the speed limit.
>
> is completely missing the point that IT'S A LIMIT, NOT A TARGET.
>
> as consideration for other road users, or the desire to save fuel and
> reduce pollution.
> The desire to race everywhere at the fastest possible speed shows
> complete disregard for all of those.
I never see this. Perhaps I'm odd but most people I come across do drive
considerately. Some of them don't drive at all well but that is not the
same thing.
--
I'm not apathetic... I just don't give a sh** anymore
?John Wright
Mark Goodge
and typed:
>On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 16:58:14 -0000, Conor <co...@gmx.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>In article <tsdaf5po7c9fgmpts...@4ax.com>, Tom Crispin
>>says...
>>
>>> To my mind, there is nothing wrong with driving at half the posted
>>> limit.
>>
>>Except for the long queue of people you're holding up, you selfish cunt.
>
>With the average speed of traffic being 12mph in London, driving at 15
>in 30 zones and 10 in 20 zones might actually increase average speeds.
That's an average speed consisting of the times when you are moving
and the times when you are stationary (eg, when waiting at traffic
lights). If you travel more slowly when you are moving, you'll still
spend the same amount of time stationary but you'll take longer
overall. So your average speed will be lower.
Tom Crispin
Driving slowly you will have more of a margin to increase your speed,
and still be within the speed limit, thus increase your chances of
arriving on green.
Conor
says...
> With the average speed of traffic being 12mph in London, driving at 15
> in 30 zones and 10 in 20 zones might actually increase average speeds.
Here's a clue: The rest of the UK isn't like London.
Conor
says...
>
> Conor <co...@gmx.co.uk> considered Sat, 7 Nov 2009 16:58:14 -0000 the
> perfect time to write:
>
> >In article <tsdaf5po7c9fgmpts...@4ax.com>, Tom Crispin
> >says...
> >
> >> To my mind, there is nothing wrong with driving at half the posted
> >> limit.
> >
> >Except for the long queue of people you're holding up, you selfish cunt.
>
> be driving at all.
And the whole point being made is that quite often, no such opportunity
presents itself. For example, on the A614 from Howden to Bridlington on
a Friday night, Saturday and Sundays (plus bank holidays) until 2pm from
and again on the A614 from Bridlington to Howden on Saturday and Sunday
evenings (plus bank holidays) from 4pm-7pm April until September
Conor
says...
Because they had no choice. Try driving a modern car on a free flowing
motorway at 35MPH and see how long it is before you attract the
attention of the Police.
Conor
says...
> >..says the man who advocates driving at 50% of the speed limit.
>
> All I said was, "there is nothing wrong with driving at half the
> posted limit."
Go look up the definition of the word "advocate".
Conor
> > In article <0ojaf5h4uqcndlk76...@4ax.com>, Peter Grange
> > says...
> >
> >> Of course, that's absolutely typical of all cycling in the UK.
> >
> > pavement, riding up the wrong side of the road, cutting up
> > vehicles...yep it is although usually at lower speeds.
>
> Some LA's have been encouraging riding the wrong way up one way streets by
> creating contraflow cycle lanes.
>
So in that case, they're cycling in their own lanes in a permissable
direction.
> Pavement riding is also encouraged by shared pedestrian/cyclist paths.
>
See above.
> Toucan crossings also encourage cyclists to behave like pedestrians.
By getting off and pushing their bikes across.
Conor
says...
> Or if the road is sufficiently wide. How easy would it be, for
> example, to overtake a car doing 35mph on the nearside lane of a clear
> five lane motorway?
>
Tom finally admits his argument is bollox.
> Certainly a competent motorist would have little difficulty.
Many accidents have been caused by old twats travelling at 35MPH on free
flowing motorways.
Tom Crispin
>In article <2s9bf5h6r4tcgcpf8...@4ax.com>, Tom Crispin
>says...
>
>> >..says the man who advocates driving at 50% of the speed limit.
>>
>> All I said was, "there is nothing wrong with driving at half the
>> posted limit."
>
>Go look up the definition of the word "advocate".
=====quote=====
recommend: push for something; "The travel agent recommended strongly
that we not travel on Thanksgiving Day"
=====/quote=====
And your point?
Conor
you know? says...
> Surprising but true. In fact, cyclists appear to be the least likely
> of all road users to be the authors of their own misfortune.
http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/cn_news_cambridge/displayarticle.asp?id=
460698
CYCLISTS in Cambridge are beginning to see the light - but many are
still in the dark over bike laws.
Police last week mounted a crackdown on anti-social cyclists, targeting
riders cycling without lights.
Over four days of the crackdown last year some 154 cyclists were caught
without lights in the city centre. This year, that number fell to 116
from Monday to Thursday last week.
On Monday in Sidney Street and Petty Cury, some 43 cyclists were nabbed
without lights and 18 were fined for cycling on the pavement.
In the market square the following evening, some 16 cyclists had no
lights and 10 cycled on the pavement.
On Wednesday in Sidney Street and Market Street 23 cyclists had no
lights and 11 rode on the pavement and three people were fined for other
cycling offences The following night on Quayside some 34 riders had no
lights and 11 were caught cycling on the pavement.
A total of 47 riders were fined over that week for other cycling
offences.
AND THE TELLING BIT:
"Every officer who has taken part in the operation has commented on the
large number of cyclists without lights."
Conor
says...
You advocate travelling at 50% below the posted limit.
Tom Crispin
>In article <9rbbf5dqcptau5ter...@4ax.com>, Tom Crispin
>says...
>
>> Or if the road is sufficiently wide. How easy would it be, for
>> example, to overtake a car doing 35mph on the nearside lane of a clear
>> five lane motorway?
>>
>Tom finally admits his argument is bollox.
>
>> Certainly a competent motorist would have little difficulty.
>
>Many accidents have been caused by old twats travelling at 35MPH on free
>flowing motorways.
Cites?
Just zis Guy, you know?
All of which is entirely irrelevant to my point. You might just as
well point to the many sources stating that most drivers freely admit
breaking the law by speeding, it makes no difference at all to the
documented fact that cyclists are *less* likely than any other class
of road user to be at fault when injured.
Just zis Guy, you know?
>You advocate travelling at 50% below the posted limit.
Your inability to distinguish between advocacy and understanding is
noted.
Tom Crispin
>In article <h8sbf51ksn28dt7fq...@4ax.com>, Tom Crispin
>says...
>>
>> On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 22:10:03 -0000, Conor <co...@gmx.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <2s9bf5h6r4tcgcpf8...@4ax.com>, Tom Crispin
>> >says...
>> >
>> >> >..says the man who advocates driving at 50% of the speed limit.
>> >>
>> >> All I said was, "there is nothing wrong with driving at half the
>> >> posted limit."
>> >
>> >Go look up the definition of the word "advocate".
>>
>> =====quote=====
>> recommend: push for something; "The travel agent recommended strongly
>> that we not travel on Thanksgiving Day"
>> =====/quote=====
>>
>> And your point?
>
>You advocate travelling at 50% below the posted limit.
So you think that saying, "There's nothing wrong with wearing sandals
with socks" is synonymous with saying, "I recommend wearing sandals
with socks"?
John Wright
Average speeds are often very different what you think they might be. On
a car I travel in which spends most of its time in national speed limit
areas and dual carraigeways, the trip computer tells me the average
speed over the last few thousand miles is 34 mph.
John Wright
> "Conor" <co...@gmx.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:MPG.255fb7e8...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> In article <0ojaf5h4uqcndlk76...@4ax.com>, Peter Grange
>> says...
>>
>>> Of course, that's absolutely typical of all cycling in the UK.
>> Riding the wrong way up one way streets, jumping lights, riding on the
>> pavement, riding up the wrong side of the road, cutting up
>> vehicles...yep it is although usually at lower speeds.
>
> Some LA's have been encouraging riding the wrong way up one way streets by
> creating contraflow cycle lanes.
That's not an encouragement to do it elsewhere.
> Pavement riding is also encouraged by shared pedestrian/cyclist paths.
That's not an encouragement to do it elsewhere.
> Toucan crossings also encourage cyclists to behave like pedestrians.
That's not an encouragement to do it elsewhere.
Roger Merriman
> Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> considered Sat, 07 Nov
> 2009 17:16:40 +0000 the perfect time to write:
>
> >On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 16:32:18 +0000, Tom Crispin put finger to keyboard
> >and typed:
> >
> >>On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 15:59:02 -0000, "Graculus"
> >><ReplaceWit...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>Then your mind is pretty screwed up. Barring the normal hazards (wet/icy
> >>>roads, bends, obstacles etc), do you really think it's considerate to other
> >>>road users to pootle along at 25 in a 50, or 30 in a NSL? In fact, I'd
> >>>consider it DWDC, as you would be seriously pissing off those behind you.
> >>
> >>I would have thought that the opposite would be the case. A competent
> >>motorist should find it far easier to overtake another motorist
> >>driving at 25mph on a road with a 50mph limit than a motorist driving
> >>at 48mph on a road with a 50mph limit.
> >
> >You can only overtake safely if the road is reasonably straight and
> >there's nothing coming the other way.
> >
> But you need a far greater length of unobstructed straight road to
> overtake something traveling 5mph below the speed limit than something
> traveling at 25mph below the speed limit.
>
> Of course, all this encouragement to drive as fast as legally possible
> is completely missing the point that IT'S A LIMIT, NOT A TARGET.
>
> Reasons for driving slower are many, and include such mundane things
> as consideration for other road users, or the desire to save fuel and
> reduce pollution.
> The desire to race everywhere at the fastest possible speed shows
> complete disregard for all of those.
what I've noted is driving with little thought behond the here/now which
means that they end up living up to the too much haste not enought
speed, by that I mean pottering along in my wee ford that is hardly
overpowered I can often over take the rushing car as I'm not sitting on
the next cars back bumber.
roger
--
www.rogermerriman.com
Nick
>> You advocate travelling at 50% below the posted limit.
>
> So you think that saying, "There's nothing wrong with wearing sandals
> with socks" is synonymous with saying, "I recommend wearing sandals
> with socks"?
Watch it. You're skating on thin ice now!
Adam Lea
>>
> But you need a far greater length of unobstructed straight road to
> overtake something traveling 5mph below the speed limit than something
> traveling at 25mph below the speed limit.
You are much less likely to want to overtake something travelling at 5 mph
below the speed limit than at 25 mph below the speed limit.
Adam Lea
> NM wrote:
>> On 7 Nov, 13:33, "thomas" <toooommy...@retardedloony.com> wrote:
>>> "Judith M Smith" <judithmsm...@live.co.uk> wrote in
>>> message>news:2l09f5l96cgjm41af...@4ax.com... It would be
>>> interesting to hear from the drivers who kill them
>>> what they excuses are.
>>>
>>> Any ideas?
>> ?
>>> ***Plenty of car drivers are stupid enough to "sneak up" on the
>>> side of a juggernaut -BANG - in a car new wing mirror - on a bike
>>> death!
>>
>> So why do it? Death wish perhaps!? (or is that the correct natural
>> presumption for cyclists?)
>>
>
> Ignorance most like; after all, the presumption is that cyclists
> 'belong' in the left hand gutter so it's not surprising that
> inexperienced and unassertive cyclists end up there.
And that is where the cycle lanes tend to be.
Conor
says...
> >Many accidents have been caused by old twats travelling at 35MPH on free
> >flowing motorways.
>
> Cites?
15 years of driving up and down them.
Conor
Only because it pisses over your argument.
> You might just as
> well point to the many sources stating that most drivers freely admit
> breaking the law by speeding, it makes no difference at all to the
> documented fact that cyclists are *less* likely than any other class
> of road user to be at fault when injured.
But you're the one claiming cyclists are holier than thou.
Conor
Conor
>
> On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 22:18:48 -0000, Conor <co...@gmx.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >In article <h8sbf51ksn28dt7fq...@4ax.com>, Tom Crispin
> >says...
> >>
> >> On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 22:10:03 -0000, Conor <co...@gmx.co.uk> wrote:
> >>
> >> >In article <2s9bf5h6r4tcgcpf8...@4ax.com>, Tom Crispin
> >> >says...
> >> >
> >> >> >..says the man who advocates driving at 50% of the speed limit.
> >> >>
> >> >> All I said was, "there is nothing wrong with driving at half the
> >> >> posted limit."
> >> >
> >> >Go look up the definition of the word "advocate".
> >>
> >> =====quote=====
> >> recommend: push for something; "The travel agent recommended strongly
> >> that we not travel on Thanksgiving Day"
> >> =====/quote=====
> >>
> >> And your point?
> >
> >You advocate travelling at 50% below the posted limit.
>
> So you think that saying, "There's nothing wrong with wearing sandals
> with socks" is synonymous with saying, "I recommend wearing sandals
> with socks"?
But you weren't saying that about travelling below the speed limit,
hypocrite.
Conor
says...
>
> Unless there's a posted minimum speed limit, "I just wanted to save
> fuel" or "I prefer to drive slowly" are both perfectly acceptable
> explanations.
You would be charged with DWDC
Polly Parrot
use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk says...
>
> If you want my explanation (not an excuse, since I think that bad
> driving is always inexcusable), I'd say that it's precisely the
> automated enforcement of purely technical offences, such as speeding,
> that is the problem. It's creating a generation of motorists who think
> that so long as they're within the speed limit they must be driving
> safely, and removed the incentive for the police to do the job of
> policing bad driving.
Good stuff. Even God squad types (hardly known for their willingness to
consider evidence, however compelling) are now seeing cameras for what
they are. Almost exclusively it's *only* the car-haters and other
fuckwit busybodies and those who don't know all the facts who still
support cameras. It's heartening that such a high percentage of the
public (almost all reasonable, intelligent people in fact) have seen
through the scam, and I'm confident that it's only a matter of time
until a future (probably Conservative) government gets fed up with
having to explain away the deaths caused by cameras and scraps the lot
(if it doesn't happen sooner at a local level).
Of course, that won't mean that those who currently support cameras for
pathetic "reasons" despite knowing that they kill people aren't still
pure scum. (Did someone say "Chapman"?) Still, at least they'll have
to find another way to piss off motorists once cameras go, and they're
obviously not very confident about being able to do that, otherwise they
wouldn't have fought so hard to keep cameras, which I have to admit are
a pretty good way of persecuting and bullying the law-abiding motorist,
making sure that the safest drivers are the ones who are criminalised in
a lot of cases, and saying loud and clear "We hate and distrust you
because you drive, and we want you to stop driving, so we like using
heavy-handed, discretionless enforcement against you even when you drive
safely, and here's a speed camera to prove it (oh and there's another
one just down the road)".
No wonder the car-haters were so pleased when cameras arrived: they were
the best mass weapon against normal, safe motorists that had ever been
deployed. So it's no surprise at all the the car-haters are doing all
they can (including the use of shameful and incredibly dirty tactics,
and even stalking people, making bomb threats and breaking numerous
other proper laws) to keep the cameras, even if they do have the minor
side effect of killing thousands of people a year (sorry, I know some
people don't like that being mentioned...perhaps their proto-consciences
are giving them a little bit of momentary trouble? Their fault, not
mine, and if they had proper consciences then they wouldn't have ever
taken such a stance).